BGM - No no no. You're equating hell with a kind of world of mega-sin. It isn't. You're just tortured, and the devil never stops.
That makes no sense at all.
Why would the devil do the will of 'god?
God desires humans who disobey 'gods will' to be punished, 'sinners' are damned to burn in hell-fire.
But why?
Surely any 'devil' that may exist, would reward such behaviour? The devil after all, is the great tempter of semitic theology. It would be logical to assume that 'hell' would be a place of 'sin', that is a place where actions and ideas opposed to 'god' would be actively encouraged, where they would flourish (bearing in mind, it is dangerous for ones' mental health to attempt to apply consistent logic to religious theology/doctrine).
However, if the devil really ran 'hell' like is assumed in this paradigm, would that not be a subversion of gods authority? Surely an 'all-powerful', 'all-knowing', 'all-encompassing' entity such as the semitic 'god' would have the power to control everything, including the actions of the devil and the conditions of 'hell'?
More to the point, why doesn't god just elminate hell and the devil altogether?
Why? Because that would remove any incentive to obey, and if there's one thing god can't stand, it's disobedience, the bible after all- is riddled with bloody genocides and murders by god of 'his' (god is constructed as masculine in the semitic tradition) disobedient subjects. Indeed in the semitic religions obedience to god is both demanded (by god and his earthly hierarchy) and revered as a virtue.
Moreover, the role asserted of god in semitic theology is not one of 'devilish' intervention, he largely stays out the devil's dealings, and hell itself. In semitic theology, hell is the abode of the devil alone, so why then would the devil do god's work?
The prince of darkness has no personal interest/stake in punishing 'sinners'- at least, if theology is to be applied logically, he should not (to the contrary he is gods eternal arch-nemesis - constantly and actively undermining gods at every turn).
As a proponent of earthly sin, it would be illogical for the devil then to punish such acts in hell, effectively carrying out gods 'work' or 'gods will'.
Nevertheless, I have a feeling a believer may assert that this would illustrate the 'truly evil' nature of the devil, ie. that he would punish sinners, despite encouraging them to be sinful (temptation etc). But such an assertion undermines the role of the devil as a force of opposition, an enemy of 'god'. If the devil was to punish the'sinners than broadly speaking, 'he' would be an ally of 'god- not an enemy, which contradicts semitic theology to say the least.
It's clear then that the real role of hell and the devil in semitic theology is to coerce believers, to manufacture obedience to gods authority and power (things that god clearly states as desireable in religious texts), because if one does not obey, then hell-an eternity of pain and suffering- awaits YOU!
However as illustrated above, this is woefully illogical.
Hell if it existed as such, should be a place merely where sin and sinners, be they single-mothers, adulterers, murderers, queer or trans peoples, abortionists, atheists, communists, 'pagans' and all non-christians/jews/muslims alike (depending on whether the christian, jewish or muslim god is the 'true' god) -> where all these amongst others 'live for eternity'- and perhaps even where they are actively rewarded by the devil (!)
Where they can 'enjoy' the fruit of their sin in abundance with other sinners. Given the alternative, i think i'd prefer 'hell', an eternity in a 'heaven' of racist, sexist, homophobic christians/jews/muslims, the personification of sexual and individual repression, is not in the least bit appealing!
And anyway, why does god punish humans for exercising the 'free-will' he has given them? Surely that is a contradiction? 'Free-will' is an idea used frequently by believers to explain why 'bad things happen to good people'...despite the fact that the bible makes it quite clear that for example 'natural disasters' are 'punishment' for 'sin' (sorry victims of south-asian tsunami/new orleans floods etc., you 'paid for sin'!)
But how can humans really have 'free-will' if god enforces restrictions on our behaviour? (and to be clear, it's not just 'sins' like murder, but saving the life of a woman via an abortion, even using contraception or touching a woman during menstruation, being queer or intersex etc. etc.)
Not only does the 'god' of the semitic tradition actively intervene in our lives*** in order to directly punish, which in many cases involved killing/physical punishment of alledged sinners, but more than that, we're even subject to punishment after-death!
***Well at least, he did overtly hundreds and in some cases thousands of years ago; not in the modern era for some bizarre reason- the critical eye of science perhaps? Is god afraid of being subject to reasoned and thorough criticism?
How is that a meaningful system of 'free-will'? Our actions, and desires, our will, is constrained by all-encompassing- yet obfuscatory- 'rules' and obligations, riddled with inconsistencies and contradictions, but as outlined by 'our' infalliable god. And further still, we shall be 'judged' and potentially punished for eternity, based on whether we obey god, that is, whether or not we do what he says we should do with our 'freedom'. Is it just me, or does that sound more like subservience than 'freedom'?
Another idea, why is it wrong to assume that if there was a god, that it would not reward people for using the brains and free will they were 'given', and critically examine, and even reject the supernatural/god? After all, there is no evidence for the supernatural, religious belief is based on 'faith', that is- nothing; why would god reward the gullible? The ignorant? The conformist? This is of course ignoring the gross hypocrisy and atrocity perpetuated by 'gods representatives' on earth (religious institutions/hierarchy/clergy/believers)
Why would god love such people?
Because they had good intentions?
Because he is all-forgiving? Then why does anyone end up in hell?
I think the theological response is... (said in hushed voice)... god really isnt all forgiving, despite what the religious texts say or indeed what god himself has said. In reality one is only forgiven if they 'truely' repent for their actions... which of course unfairly favours the sinners who are capable of embracing religious faith with a straight-face.
The end being that genocidal maniacs for example, who dig religious concepts like 'faith', and thus who can genuinely believe in the existance of god and given the inclination genuinely/honestly repent their sins... will be forgiven! Alternatively an abortionist for example, who disagrees with god (big mistake) - and would argue that abortion is not 'murder' and thus not evil or sinful... well they're never gonna repent are they? TO THE HELL FIRES!
But really the biggest problem here is that the 'will of god' is elucidated so poorly in religous texts, its so riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies that practically any action can be divinely sanctioned using 'gods words'. From an opposition to miscegenation (and ive read arguments by christian identity theologists aka white nationalist christians to this end and they make perfect sense in a biblical context), a call for the murder of same-sex couples, inter-racial couples, individual queers and abortionists, to the pursuit of racial apocalypse or 'racial purification'- the murder of all 'Jews and all non-whites' (see: the Christian patriot/identity movement in the US), to unprovoked military invasions, indiscriminate 'total war', slavery, and a whole manner of oppression, sexual, gender, and otherwise.
If a god existed in a semitic sense, it would be hypocritical for it to punish ANYONE. Least of all because of gods own violation of 'the rules'. If god 'loves' his enemies (like 'jesus' says), why does he so ruthlessly smite/punish/murder them?
Is god above consistency? (i honestly would be suprised if a believer infact argued the affirmative)
How can god be infallible and inconsistent at the same time?
The fact that god has left no credible evidence for his existence (and the religious retort is ridiculous, 'the proof is all-round!' - yes stuff is all around me, but can you prove that god made that? No. It existing doesnt prove gods existance... because he created that stuff, that's circular logic), nor of the validity of any texts or dogma credited to his word or will, means that billions of people could and probably are 'disobeying' the 'will of god', but in complete ignorance... that is through no real fault of their own, the nebulous nature of religion (and religious laws) can be and is a 'valid' excuse for any 'wrong-doing'.
Sorry for the long post/rant.
Originally posted by btot+--> (btot)You're also equating heaven with abstinence from the things you enjoy. It isn't. [/b]
How is that possible?
Many of the things i enjoy are by gods definition evil/sins - ignoring the fact that because of this i could never be in heaven - why would god allow people to enjoy evil/sinful things in heaven?
If he would not then heaven is indeed a place when i must abstain from the things i enjoy.
Just face it, heaven is a place for boring religious freaks.
Originally posted by
[email protected]
According to the whacko theists I debate with now and then, you're just a soul who experiences eternal bliss.
What does that even mean? I have no spiritual form in heaven? How can a soul feel 'bliss'? How can i see other souls if i and others are without some kind of form?
btot
And there is no theocracy in heaven, it's not like a literal location or anything, with rulers and such. It's just magic happy land
Is hell a literal location or is it just like a big empty void like heaven (minus the bliss)?
Also, what are these descriptions of heaven and hell based on exactly?