Why would God need a hell?

[mickiel]

As I consider God, its hard for me to consider him needing a place like hell? The Christian concept of eternal hell punishing is a barbaric thing to consider. Why would God need to punish a human for all of eternity. Lets just say a human does not believe in God, and they live that way for 80 years; they die and according to many interpretations of hell , they will be brought back to life; judged, then banished to an eternity of living suffering in this hell.

I mean that punishment does not even fit the crime; 80 years of living, now they must live forever in suffering? Why?

Why would a God even need to do that?

[mickiel]

[Replying to post 950 by mickiel]

[center]

Being an agnostic does not imply using a bad epistemology.[/center]

Spoken like a true Agnostic , you just don't know what to believe;

I know exactly what I should and should not believe. I have a method, I use it, and it works. You may want to talk to an actual agnostic and see what that method just might be.

which is confusion in the dictionary.

The dictionary might be confused.. but I'm not.

So when someone has taken a side , you disagree because you have taken none.

Not at all so.
Disagreeing that there is sufficient evidence to TAKE a side IS a side.

I don't pretend to know what I don't.

The argument ad populum certainly is NOT a good method to know if something is true or not. Any "side" that is justified by using that fallacious method is more likely to be WRONG. My "side" is trying to be more likely RIGHT.

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/popular.html

Not knowing can be a confusion;

http://www.indianapolisrecorder.com/rel ... 963f4.html

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 952 by mickiel]

Not knowing can be a confusion;

http://www.indianapolisrecorder.com/rel ... 963f4.html

Not knowing is simply not knowing, or IGNORANCE.
I can't be confusing something that I do not KNOW.

I can only get confused if I am convinced that I know something that I do not. THEN, I'm confused, alright.

Sure, a lot of people have that popular misconception as to what "agnostic" is supposed to mean.. I'm surprised that a leader of a secular organization would have THAT definition wrong.. lots of people really do think that it means "sitting on the fence" or "partial belief". But it's not at all that. People sometimes use philosophical terms in rather personal ways that doesn't really demonstrate a lot of thinking. Reba might not be a thinker.. might be more of an organizer. You know.. leaving the philosophy to the others in the group.

In any case, Reba isn't an authority on what "agnosticism" means. She has her own opinions. I'm sure she is a nice lady.

Agnosticism literally means "NO KNOWLEDGE" and that's it. Anything else is something that people add to the concept. When it comes to the proposition "God", an agnostic asserts that he or she doesn't have any knowledge
Point finale.

Oh, and atheism means NO BELIEF.. end of story.

People DO like to add stuff to the term and I have met TONS of people who use the word "agnostic" the way that Reba uses it. But Ms. Wooden is explaining her OWN use of the word.. and not actually speaking about agnosticism in general. As in all things, people have different ideas about what philosophical terms mean and how to use them.

Ms. Wooden is using the term in a rather confusing way.. she might not be the best person to explain what the term actually means.

Two negative positions on theism.. agnosticism is about the lack of knowledge of a god, and atheism is about the lack of god belief.

That's it. These are not positions that describe "doubt". A lack of knowledge isn't "doubt", it's IGNORANCE.. that's why the word agnostic uses GNOSIS... it's about knowledge.. and the "A" in front of "gnosis" ( the Greek word for knowledge ) means NO.

Agnosticism doesn't mean a little knowledge... it means NONE.

Reba Wooden just confused the issue by not doing her homework.
Or the reporter got it wrong somehow.

[mickiel]

[Replying to post 952 by mickiel]

Not knowing can be a confusion;

http://www.indianapolisrecorder.com/rel ... 963f4.html

Not knowing is simply not knowing, or IGNORANCE.
I can't be confusing something that I do not KNOW.

I can only get confused if I am convinced that I know something that I do not. THEN, I'm confused, alright.

Sure, a lot of people have that popular misconception as to what "agnostic" is supposed to mean.. I'm surprised that a leader of a secular organization would have THAT definition wrong.. lots of people really do think that it means "sitting on the fence" or "partial belief". But it's not at all that. People sometimes use philosophical terms in rather personal ways that doesn't really demonstrate a lot of thinking. Reba might not be a thinker.. might be more of an organizer. You know.. leaving the philosophy to the others in the group.

In any case, Reba isn't an authority on what "agnosticism" means. She has her own opinions. I'm sure she is a nice lady.

Agnosticism literally means "NO KNOWLEDGE" and that's it. Anything else is something that people add to the concept. When it comes to the proposition "God", an agnostic asserts that he or she doesn't have any knowledge
Point finale.

Oh, and atheism means NO BELIEF.. end of story.

People DO like to add stuff to the term and I have met TONS of people who use the word "agnostic" the way that Reba uses it. But Ms. Wooden is explaining her OWN use of the word.. and not actually speaking about agnosticism in general. As in all things, people have different ideas about what philosophical terms mean and how to use them.

Ms. Wooden is using the term in a rather confusing way.. she might not be the best person to explain what the term actually means.

Two negative positions on theism.. agnosticism is about the lack of knowledge of a god, and atheism is about the lack of god belief.

That's it. These are not positions that describe "doubt". A lack of knowledge isn't "doubt", it's IGNORANCE.. that's why the word agnostic uses GNOSIS... it's about knowledge.. and the "A" in front of "gnosis" ( the Greek word for knowledge ) means NO.

Agnosticism doesn't mean a little knowledge... it means NONE.

Reba Wooden just confused the issue by not doing her homework.
Or the reporter got it wrong somehow.

Well I can agree with you on this, most of my research tonight has produced just what you have stated. I learned a lot more about Agnostics tonight.

[mickiel]

Really , why would God need a hell , when all of humanity really needs grace , mercy , love and forgiveness from God?

[Claire Evans]

As I consider God, its hard for me to consider him needing a place like hell? The Christian concept of eternal hell punishing is a barbaric thing to consider. Why would God need to punish a human for all of eternity. Lets just say a human does not believe in God, and they live that way for 80 years; they die and according to many interpretations of hell , they will be brought back to life; judged, then banished to an eternity of living suffering in this hell.

I mean that punishment does not even fit the crime; 80 years of living, now they must live forever in suffering? Why?

Why would a God even need to do that?

I believe hell is the complete separation from God. If a sinner rejects Him once knowing Him and won't part with their sin, they put themselves in hell. It is their choice. God cannot make anyone love Him. Hell is a place devoid of God's presence.

[Talishi]

I believe hell is the complete separation from God. If a sinner rejects Him once knowing Him and won't part with their sin, they put themselves in hell. It is their choice. God cannot make anyone love Him. Hell is a place devoid of God's presence.

How does that make hell different from Earth, evidence-wise?

[mickiel]

As I consider God, its hard for me to consider him needing a place like hell? The Christian concept of eternal hell punishing is a barbaric thing to consider. Why would God need to punish a human for all of eternity. Lets just say a human does not believe in God, and they live that way for 80 years; they die and according to many interpretations of hell , they will be brought back to life; judged, then banished to an eternity of living suffering in this hell.

I mean that punishment does not even fit the crime; 80 years of living, now they must live forever in suffering? Why?

Why would a God even need to do that?

I believe hell is the complete separation from God. If a sinner rejects Him once knowing Him and won't part with their sin, they put themselves in hell. It is their choice. God cannot make anyone love Him. Hell is a place devoid of God's presence.

Okay, explain to me why God would "Co-exist" with this separated hell in eternity? And are you suggesting that God would allow a place like that to be an eternal monument to sin? Why would God allow such a place in his eternity? If he does not like something , why would he keep it around forever.

Also may I ask ,are you saying that God created this eternal hell?

[ttruscott]

Okay, explain to me why God would "Co-exist" with this separated hell in eternity? And are you suggesting that God would allow a place like that to be an eternal monument to sin? Why would God allow such a place in his eternity? If he does not like something , why would he keep it around forever.

My only suggestion is based upon Jesus calling the place of the wicked as the outer darkness. Outer to what?

I realized that unless the created reality we live in is infinite, it has an edge, a finite limit. Therefore it could be supposed that the lake of fire is somewhere or anywhere out past that limit, outside of, past the edge of, not within, totally removed from, created reality.

If so, it is not in any place to be seen as a reminder of evil nor did HE have to make it as a special place for the eternally evil ones to exist.

[mickiel]

[Replying to post 959 by ttruscott]



In my view , the created reality we live in, which is basically the planet earth, is not infinite ,it is now finite and will be destroyed. The good news is that it will be renewed. God is going to basically make the planet earth , not a physical planet ,but a spiritual one. And that "New Earth" will then become infinite. I don't know how he is going to do that ,but my understanding is that he will.

Our reality , the physical world , or matter ,is decaying; it was designed to .I can entertain the idea that there is an "Edge " in our seemingly unlimited universe , where matter just stops, and there is just nothing else there. Now IF the physical universe meets the Spiritual one somewhere ,I just don't know.

[Claire Evans]

I believe hell is the complete separation from God. If a sinner rejects Him once knowing Him and won't part with their sin, they put themselves in hell. It is their choice. God cannot make anyone love Him. Hell is a place devoid of God's presence.

How does that make hell different from Earth, evidence-wise?

True hell cannot be experienced on earth because there is the Holy Spirit. Spiritual hell is a completely different thing. I don't believe hell is a place but rather the state of one soul. The separation of God where there is no good. I believe Jesus was slipping into hell when He was dying because He asked why the Father had forsaken Him? Taking on the sin of the world separated Jesus from God.